Is Your Mezonos Wrap Really Mezonos?

00:00 Speaker 1 Welcome to the Halacha Podcast, Lemaan Yishmeu, with Harav Yosef Yeshaya Brown, Maharad Asra and a member of the Crown Heights based din. This podcast is brought to you by the Ask the Rav platform in partnership with Lemaan Yilmedu, the premier institute for practical Halacha learning.

00:21 Speaker 2 Welcome back to another installment of the Lemaan Yishmeu Ask the Rav podcast. It's been a while. Over Yom Tov, we haven't had any podcasts. We're back again, and I wanna share with you some questions, some related to Yom Tov and to after Yom Tov that came up. So a question relating to Simchas Torah. There's a minhag that we do Hakafos on Simchas Torah, and we go around the bimah seven times with the Sefer Torah, and we dance, and we celebrate in the honor of concluding the Torah. Now, this particular minhag of Hakafos, which doesn't have an original source, but it has much later sources, is that something that's only done when there's a minyan? It could be done when someone is b'yichidus, or if a shliach is in a place, he doesn't have a minyan. So luckily, we have some sources that discuss this. We have a teshuvah sefer called the Hakivi Yosef from a famous gaon, the Hakivi Yosef Schlesinger. He's addressing a different topic altogether. He's talking about a Ben Yisrael and a Ben Chus, all of a sudden they have different days. This guy keeps two days Yom Tov, one day Yom Tov. By them, Simchas Torah is on Shemini Atzeres. But he throws in a line, one line, a very short line. He writes, "V'ya'aseh Hakafos b'yichidus" or "Asah Hakafos b'yichidus," that he does Hakafos privately. And later, Poskim the Beis HaLechachmah says, which is very simple common sense logic, that Hakafos is not a Da'var Shebakedushah. We have a Mishnah

01:42 Speaker 2 in Maseches Megillah, Gemara, and Poskim based on that, that there's certain things that are called the Da'var Shebakedushah. They can only be done be-asarah with ten people. Hakafos doesn't fit that category. It's not one of those things that's kadosh and kedushah that needs to have a krias haTorah, needs to have a minyan. And of course, it could be done without a minyan too. Obviously, they're not talking about the very fact of going around the bimah. They're talking about taking out the Sefer Torah. That could be done b'yichidus. And that is indeed the minhag in places where there's unfortunately no minyan. They do Hakafos without a minyan. We have in the memoirs of Rebbetzin Chana, the Rebbe's mother. She describes her father-- her husband, sorry, the great gaon HaMakubal, Rav HaKadosh Reb Levi Yitzchak, that in his situation, he was alone when he was exiled. I believe it's when he was exiled, and he danced alone the whole night. He danced. He didn't have any Sefer Torah with him, of course. He danced with a Tanya. So there's such a thing of doing Hakafos on their own, of people b'yichidus on their own. Now, the closest parallel that we have to this is another form of Hakafos that we find. They're also referred to as Hakafos in Poskim, and sometimes you need to know what they're talking about. Hosha'anas is a form of Hakafos. When we say Hosha'anas, we go around the bimah. The Maharil writes that if somebody who's b'yachid, he's on his own, he's

02:57 Speaker 2 not-- doesn't have a minyan, should say the Hosha'anas and that's enough. V'ein tzorech hakaf. He doesn't have to go around any bimah. And he adds, "L'fi she'ein metziin sefer Torah b'fachas me'asarah" because a Sefer Torah is not taken out when there's less than ten people. So therefore, w-w-there's no Sefer Torah. What are you doing? What are you going around a bimah for? But the reality is that despite the words of the Maharil, the common custom is, and there's later Poskim that addresses based on Kabbalah and other reasons, and we address this in the Halacha for Sukkos and in other places. The reality is that people that don't have access to a minyan do Hosha'anas, and they go around. They don't take out a Sefer Torah, but they go around the bimah b'yichidus as well. The Maharil writes that you're not supposed to take out a Sefer Torah with less than ten people. Obviously, he doesn't mean there's such an isur. It's, it's certain-- it is not such thing. There's no isur. There's no prohibition to take out a Sefer Torah with less than ten people. There's a lot of proofs that there's no problem with taking out a Sefer Torah for less than ten people. The whole mitzvah of writing a Sefer Torah is in order, "Velamda ez menei Yisroel, siman b'fiem," for people to learn from a Sefer Torah. A Sefer Torah was a book of learning. So every person would write a Sefer Torah for himself and would learn from the Sefer Torah.

04:07 Speaker 2 The Radbaz and the Maharil talk about this at length, and how could you say such a thing that a Sefer Torah is only for a minyan? A Sefer Torah is for every individual. The Ariza"l would go every Friday, and he would do the practice of saying Shnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum twice the Chumash and once a translation in Aramaic. He would say it from a kosher Sefer Torah. The Radbaz goes on to explain that the way the, the, the shul is set up, they have a box ins-in-inside which a Sefer Torah is kept, and the reason it's kept in this box and not in the Aron is-- an Aron is a tevah. Not gonna go into that right now, but it's so it should be available both for the community for krias haTorah and for yechidim, for individuals. They have access to the Sefer Torah, so they could do the Shnayim Mikra from a Sefer Torah. And as explained in Poskim, that when the Mishnah says there's no krias haTorah with less than ten, it means krias haTorah with berachos. When you say the berachos on the Torah in the normal typical reading of the Torah, you need to have ten. The Pirhei Mot"g says this. The Pirhei Mot"g even writes in a place where there's no minyan, you should take out a Sefer Torah and read the Torah without a berachos, without a minyan. Some people read the Chumash. You don't take out a Sefer Torah, but there's no, uh, essential prohibition doing that. What

05:15 Speaker 2 the Maharil means that with Hosha'anas, it doesn't make sense to do that because the whole idea is to surround the mizbei-- the bimah, which is like a mizbeach. Like in the Beis Hamikdash, they surrounded the mizbeach, so that was done publicly, communally. Therefore, why are you doing this privately? It just-- the whole thing doesn't make any sense. When we talk about Simchas Torah, every individual has his own personal simcha that he finished the Torah. Although they read the Torah in public, but it's a personal simcha. There's actually a distinction between the two when it comes to Hosha'anas. The Rama brings the minhag that someone who's mourning doesn't go around the bimah. When it comes to Simchas Torah, even people that are within the year of mourning do go around. The minhag is in Chabad. They go with someone else with him, but each individual also can go and join. Why can he join? Because it's his own personal simcha. Now, I, I will admit, I will concede there are those that are very particular we should not take out a Sefer Torah just to learn from it, and this is connected with the shit of the Rash that nowadays the mitzvah of Kesiva Sefer Torah has, has moved from writing a Sefer Torah into buying books because we don't learn from a Sefer Torah anymore. But even that argument is because since you can learn from a printed Chumash, why take out a Sefer Torah? But over here, the reason we're taking out a Sefer

06:29 Speaker 2 Torah is not to learn from it. That I could do from a Chumash. We're taking out a closed Sefer Torah to respect the Sefer Torah, to show the covenant of the Sefer Torah, to rejoice with the Sefer Torah, and that has nothing to do y-- with a minyan, with less than a minyan. Whoever it is, we take out a Sefer Torah, even a person on their own, to show respect to the Sefer Torah. Even if someone-- one would be machmir not to take out a Sefer Torah under normal circumstances because of respect of the Sefer Torah, in this case, the respect of the Sefer Torah demands that we should take out a Sefer Torah and show, show appreciation and rejoice with the Sefer Torah even when a person is on their own. However, what I will say is that the individual's obligation is to participate with the community. When there's a community that's doing Hakafas, that doesn't mean that every single individual has to go around with a Sefer Torah. In many places, especially in a place which has a very large community, most people don't even get the honor of having Hakafa with a Sefer Torah. The traditional custom was that it would be chashve people in the community, the rabbis, the teachers, the shochtim, whoever it was, they were honored with Hakafa. Nobody else actually went and did Hakafas. So there's no such thing that everybody has to go, the way some people do is once they get Hakafa, they go seven times

07:43 Speaker 2 around. The, the-- those that are going around are going around for the entire community. We actually see the Taz writes that idea that the ma-- He says about his shyness, but the idea, the principle is the same, that those that are going around, he says about w-when a mourner is not doing his shyness. Well, those who went around are representing the entire community, and certainly that is the case with Hakafas. We see with the Rabbeim as well, they didn't go to every single Hakafa. The Rebbe had the first and the seventh Hakafa. The Alter Rebbe was an exception to the rule. He did twice Hakafas. Once he got all seven Hakafas, and then there was another, uh, separate Hakafas that was done afterwards, a public, more public form of Hakafas where he didn't get all the Hakafas. But otherwise, the Rabbeim generally didn't go all the Hakafas. There's no obligation for each individual to get his own Hakafa. If somebody wants to, there's nothing wrong with it, but there's no such thing. The Rebbe, one-- there was a particular occasion in the year Tachshat Shvat after Hakafas, after Sudy Sanhedrin, the Rebbe came back to the shul, to the zal, and had a Tares being done again and honoring everybody with Hakafa, but that was an exception to the rule. That's not, um, something that which is a requirement. You were there by Hakafas, that does the job. Another question that came in a lot of times over the last week, and will most likely

08:55 Speaker 2 continue to come in a lot, is about the same taleh mater. So the timing of saying the same taleh mater, when we say the berakhah barekh aleinu uberakh hashana mishmei neysrei, we ask for rain, and we say the same taleh mater in contrast to the same berakhah. The timing depends on where you live. There are multiple reasons for that. People in Eretz Yisrael start asking for rain on the seventh of Cheshvan, whereas in Chutz La'aretz, people that are outside of Eretz Yisrael, they begin on the secular day, depending on the year, it's either the fifth or the sixth of December. That's because it's based on sixty days after the tekufah, after the equinox, the September equinox. So if somebody is traveling from Eretz Yisrael to Chutz La'aretz or from Chutz La'aretz to Eretz Yisrael, the question is, what practice do they follow? There's a lot of different opinions on this topic. The more accepted position seems to be to follow the practice of the country where you are presently. So if somebody is going to be leaving their home country before the change is made in his own country, and he comes to another country where they made the change, he should follow the practice of the, of the destination as soon as he arrives. In, in a lot of halakhas we talk about you're going yourself, you're going with your family, you're planning to come back, you're not planning to come back, how long are you staying there? Over here, it has nothing to

10:09 Speaker 2 do with that. Wherever you are, you daven to the place where you are. Person-- So case in point, if a person from Chutz La'aretz travels to Eretz Yisrael, and he travels before December fifth or December sixth, when they start saying the same taleh mater in Chutz La'aretz, but he came to Eretz Yisrael earlier, as soon as he lands, he starts saying the same taleh mater there. And likewise, someone from Eretz Yisrael who came to Chutz La'aretz before Zayin Cheshvan, so he will follow the practice of the Bnei Chutz La'aretz, and he will not ask for rain, and he'll wait till everybody in Chutz La'aretz does. One more important point is that we normally follow the practice of the country we're in, but once you already started asking for rain, kiven shehischil shevei nepeise, you start asking for rain, you don't stop. That's considered a chokha vetrila. One time they ask for rain. Next day I came back to Chutz La'aretz, "Oh, I stopped asking for rain." No, we don't do that. So if a person was in Eretz Yisrael for Zayin Cheshvan and he came to Chutz La'aretz, he will not stop asking for rain. Now, like I said, there are multiple opinions about this topic. We mentioned the position of the Chidah, the Bnei Yosef, which a lot of Acharonim follow this position. Reb Chaim Vital's son, Reb Shmuel Vital writes this as well. The Mishnah Brurah talks about this as well, but he's not clear about something because he writes he doesn't have

11:25 Speaker 2 the sevarim to look into them, the sevarim devar Shmuel Ya'dar. But if you look into those sevarim, you see he clearly makes no difference. You're coming back, you're not coming back, you follow the place you are. That's what the Kaf HaChaim says. The Shulchan says, and the Rebbe writes in Likutei Sichos that this is the position of Rov HaAcharonim. It could even be, by the way, that this idea that you follow your destination is even more when you're going from Chutz La'aretz to Eretz Yisrael. Eretz Yisrael is ultimately everybody's destination. Some people suggested an idea why g- we could, we could avoid the entire problem. There's a halakha that yechidim, private individuals who need rain can ask for rain in Shemoneh Esrei. We can avoid this entire shailah. So this is a modern-day invention to avoid the problem The Rebbe actually asked this question, , "Why didn't indeed the posek not come up with a solution?" But that's not the solution that's being advanced. We're just saying, why didn't they come with that solution? They say that the Chaminer Rav said... When he was told this idea of saying Shehecheyanu, he said, "That's not , that's a dreidel. That's not a psak, that's finding a solution. You're supposed to give a psak. Are you supposed to follow ?" Oh, I have an etza. Eh, etzas, it's not about etzas. Now, we-- as we mentioned, but once a person started, they never stop. it shouldn't be a joke. Some people wanna suggest that this idea that

12:42 Speaker 2 once you stop, you don't start, that depends. If you came from Eretz Yisroel where they start, and you moved-- and you came now to Chutz La'aretz, you should continue. But if you're originally Chutz La'aretz, that's where you live. You came to Eretz Yisroel, you start, but now you're going back to your original place, maybe you should stop. I don't think that's correct. I wrote-- we wrote at length about this to explain why it's not correct. The basic principle is , that it, it's about that it shouldn't be a joke. It's not about whether there's another reason why you should be asking for it, it's the fact that you started this, and once you start, don't ask again. Especially that anyhow there's good reason to start asking for rain, even in Chutz La'aretz from Zot HaChodesh onwards, and we brought some evidence for that sevarah. I don't wanna continue more about this topic. Let's move on to another topic altogether. So there is a minhag that a lot of Hasidim have, that when they daven, when they make a berachah, they say Hashem's name, they don't only wear a yarmulke, they wear a second covering. And some people have this minhag when they bench, when they daven, there, there's various different customs. So is it an obligation? Is it a minhag? What's the source for this? So let me clarify. When it comes to davening and benching, one should wear the-- a, a double covering, and specifically should wear a hat on top of a yarmulke.

13:59 Speaker 2 Some baalei nefesh, some God-fearing people, pious people, every time they say a berachah and they say Hashem's name, they do that, but other people are not so particular about that, only for davening and benching. Especially if people are wearing a large yarmulke or a yarmulke which has two layers, so that's also considered like an, a double covering. And there's a lot of sources for this idea of double covering, and posekim connect it with the Gemara in Shabbos that Rav Nachman Gaon's mother covered him, and based on the Maharsha some people want to learn peshat, she didn't just start covering when he was a little kid 'cause she's, she was worried w-- that there was an astrologer that said he's gonna be a thief, and she wanted him to have extra shomayim, so some mefarshim learn that she gave him an extra covering. Be that as it may, there's other sources, sources in the Mishnah in Masechtah Shabbos about the, the amount of clothing you're allowed to wear if you wanna save them from a fire, up to eighteen different garments. There could be two head coverings there. But be that as it may, davening and benching, certainly benching has a halacha of ituf. You're not supposed to stam be covered. You're supposed to have ituf. It's a, a covered thing and it's, it's a hat on top of, on top of your yarmulke. The-- Regarding Shema Yisrael, the Rebbe writes that about... I believe it was a Semach Zedek, from mem-memory, that he would say

15:09 Speaker 2 Shema Yisrael without a gartel, without a hat. He wouldn't wear his silk clothing. Um, there's other people that write he was wearing a shtreimel. I don't know. It could be that the other report is not reliable, or maybe there was different times about this. And this, uh, we mentioned that when it comes to berachos or saying, saying Hashem's name, there's room to be lenient, especially if wearing a yarmulke that has two pieces. Rabbi Shweidel, alav ha-shalom, Rav Aharon Yaakov Schechter used to often talk about the fact that people forgot that it used to be a thing, tafka, to get a yarmulke of two layers, which has-- It's one piece attached to another piece, to have this idea of two coverings, that even in a time when you're not wearing a hat, you should have that concept too. But people ask the question, they wanna know, can they take their hand and put their hand on top of their yarmulke without a sleeve? 'Cause a sleeve, that would be some form of a covering, and make that into a double covering. So when it comes to the hand covering the head, that says very clearly that unless you're using your sleeve, your hand is not considered a covering for your head. Someone else's hand, yes, but not your hand. You can't cover yourself through yourself. You can't have your hand covering on your head. But when you have already a covering on your head and you have a yarmulke, you wanna cover the yarmulke too and

16:23 Speaker 2 have this inun of a double covering, definitely over there we could consider it covered through the hand. There are people that can still be particular and want to have tafka two coverings, and those who are particular, uh, preferably don't rely on this, but, uh, there, there is some logic to this. Let me, let me explain the idea. This halacha is brought in Shulchan Aruch, and the Alter Rebbe seems to imply that really your hand and someone else's hands both would be a problem. But since the Rashal is even generally lenient about the idea of going without a head covering, so with someone else's hand, it could be lenient. Other posekim explain it differently. You know, there's something called mim bemina, two things that are the same cannot be a covering one to another. Um, when someone else's hand is not a normal thing to use someone else's hand, therefore that would be considered a covering. Chassidus uses the term ein etzem bas tovo etzem. A thing itself, the essence cannot block over the essence. But whichever way the pshat is, over here we're talking about the idea of a heker. It should be s-some, some type of distinction. If a distinction, when you're talking about a head covering in general, you obviously can't use your hand. When we're talking about, number one, it should be just a distinction that you're being extra particular when you're saying a berachah. Also, you're not trying to cover your head, you're trying to cover the first covering, so the

17:33 Speaker 2 hand and the covering are two different things. But still, because we're talking about kavod habrachah, we're talking about the idea of hikkah and preparing for davening and for benching is the din of ituf. Dayyanim, when they sit in a beit din, they have like a idea of a tifa sada yanan. So such a covering, it really doesn't make sense. It's not, it's not really so, so mechubadak. And therefore, although it on the one hand it's lehekhera, meaning a lot of people rely when they make just stam a berachah just to show that they're doing an extra covering. But, um, and it's not a halacha that you have to do it. But when it comes to benching and davening and things like that, you shouldn't rely on that. A question that came in, we had twice in Shloshim, right after Simchat Torah- Quite a few people ask this question. It's a question that's asked every Rosh Chodesh about what's the proper way when it comes to the berakhah on Hallel, before Hallel, and after Hallel on Rosh Chodesh. In some siddurim it says that when you say half Hallel, half Hallel, the Ɣażan should make a berakhah, and the entire tzibbur, the community, should fulfill their obligation with the Ɣażan's berakhah. Look around in Chabad, that's not a common practice. Almost everybody says the berakhah on Hallel, not only the Ɣażan. The same question is about the final berakhah. If you don't say the first berakhah, you shouldn't say the final berakhah of Yei-Hallelu-kha as well.

18:48 Speaker 2 So some siddurim say one way, some say another way. What's the proper way to go about this? So this that it says in siddurim that when the half Hallel is said, the Ɣażan should exempt the entire community from their obligation is actually not just a siddur, it's a c-- that comment is a psak of the Alter Rebbe. The Rebbe Rashab did not follow this psak, but it's a psak of the Alter Rebbe. Not only did Rebbe Rashab not follow this psak, the Rebbe once spoke about this, and he said there's a custom by Chassidim that quietly we chap arein. The Rebbe didn't translate exactly what the w-- to use a translation, he uses-- he used the Yiddish term, and it's very hard to translate it in this context what the Rebbe mean-meant exactly, to rush into it, seize an opportunity, and say the berakhah silently. So let me explain. There's actually a bunch of la-layers to this particular question. The, the Alter Rebbe in the siddur, in some prints there was a, a comment written by the Maharil, by the Alter Rebbe's brother, in the name of the Alter Rebbe, that a yakhid, a person who's davening be-yakhidus should not make a berakhah on Hallel, lo b'tekilluh v'lo b'soif. Bechol, generally in Hallel. The Rebbe Rashab wrote comments on the siddur, and he brings in the name of Tzemach Tzedek you could do whatever you want. Ignore this comment of the Maharil. We have Rabbi Abraham Chaim Naor brings a tradition that he heard from

20:05 Speaker 2 the Rav Dovid Tzvi Chen and Hershel Schindever in the name of the Tzemach Tzedek as is, "Halel tichneh berakhah." If Hallel goes well, then I make a berakhah. Don't know what that means. Um, now regarding Tzemach Tzedek, on the one hand, the Shaarei Kohel writes that he would make a berakhah when he was be-yakhid, and the Fridyger Rebbe writes in a sicha that Tzemach Tzedek was scared to make a berakhah. When he was a yakhid with a minyan, then sometimes he would daven himself on Rosh Chodesh for the amud and become the Ɣażan. It's not clear the reason why he was the Ɣażan, because he wanted to make the berakhah himself 'cause he didn't wanna be yoitzes through the shliakh tzibbur. In the, in the sicha, on the bottom it says, the person who was writing the sicha writes it seems like from the way the Fridyger Rebbe said it that he actually didn't like the fact that the Ɣażan should exempt him 'cause he wasn't particularly excited about the Ɣażan, and he would-- once he-- that he should be yoitze from this particular Ɣażan. This talk of the Fridyger Rebbe was written by our Rebbe. So the Rebbe implied over here that this was the pshat why the Tzemach Tzedek wanted to go to the amud himself on Rosh Chodesh. The Fridyger Rebbe also said that the Rebbe Maharash said, "My father was scared about the berakhah. I'm happy to take the berakhah myself." The Fridyger Rebbe writes that the Rebbe Rashab always said

21:19 Speaker 2 Hallel with a berakhah, and in the Hayom Yom as a practical halakhah it says that a yakhid, over here when we talk about a yakhid we mean a private person with ad"d minyan davening himself, says... So even though it says in the siddur, "A yakhid ein hu mevarekh al Hallel tekilluh v'lo soif," that was a comment of the Alter Rebbe's brother that wasn't accepted by the rabbim. And in Hayom Yom it says as a practice, bottom line, that we do make a berakhah. A yakhid makes a berakhah on Hallel. Now, what if a yakhid is davening with a minyan? In a day when half Hallel is said, Alter Rebbe wrote to be yoitze from the Ɣażan. The Tzemach Tzedek, as we mentioned, sometimes didn't wanna be yoitze from the Ɣażan. He rather daven himself. But the Rebbe Rashab would always make a berakhah. Why did he make a berakhah always even when he davened with a minyan? So he said, "Nashe bratya--" I-in our family, he said in Russian, our family is different. Uh, uh, he, he, he could make a berakhah himself, he doesn't have to listen to the Ɣażan. Rabbi Eliyahu Simpson, which was Rabbi Yechiel Simpson, was a, was a secretary of the Rebbe, well, of the, of the Rebbe, of the-- at the Chazon one time, the Rebbe Rashab. He writes that the Rebbe Rashab would turn to the Ɣażan and the Ɣażan-- face the Ɣażan and the Ɣażan should be motzi him, but it could be that was just it

22:24 Speaker 2 should look like he wants the Ɣażan to motzi him 'cause he-- it says clearly he made himself his own berakhah 'cause in our family things are different. And then we have what, that the Rebbe mentioned, that Chassidim practically, Chassidim have a custom that they chap arein the berakhah quietly. The Rebbe didn't explain what the word chap arein means, and that's a whole subject, an entire debate how do you define the words chap arein. But contrary to what some people say that those Chassidim that are making their own berakhah are not following what it says in the siddur, there's so many sources that indicate that this particular psak in the siddur wasn't necessarily kept at all times by all the rabbim. And when the Rebbe says the minhag of Chassidim, obviously there is indeed such a minhag, which is the practical minhag. Some suggest you have to davka say the berakhah before the Ɣażan, which creates a problem. Are you gonna answer amen on the Ɣażan or not? And others say that's not necessarily the meaning of chap arein. So there's two approaches to that. I don't have a definite answer one way or another. Another question I was asked, a different topic altogether, drying hands. Is a person allowed to dry their hands on their clothes? Are you allowed to dry your hands on someone else's clothes? Are you allowed to dry your hands on clothes that you're not wearing? Can I wi-wipe my hands on someone else's clothes and assume that they don't mind?

23:37 Speaker 2 Can I wipe my hands, dry my hands on my bedsheets in the morning when I wash my hands? So you shouldn't dry your hands on your clothing that you're wearing, for sure not. This is considered harmful. It's considered harmful for a person might forget their learning. They won't remember their learning if they dried hands on their clothing. Now, it doesn't say clearly what this means. It c-- there's those that wanna say that maybe it's only clothing that you're wearing and not clothing that you're currently not wearing, including someone else's clothing which are currently not being worn by you and is being worn by someone else. But there's a separate issue. You have to have the person's permission. You can't assume that a person would agree that you, that, um, if he has clothing hanging on a coat rack, um, that he agrees without asking the person. So that's-- there, there's a discussion about that. Bedsheets are not considered clothing. You're allowed to dry your hands on your own bedsheets. The reasons for the logic one way or another, there's no clarity about this. It says, "Ha-menagiv yado be-chaluka," if someone dries his hand on his garment, "kashel ha-shikha." It's, it's a problem. It might cause a person to forget their learning. Poskim discuss if it's only chaluka, only your cloak, or all your garments. The common accept, uh, accepted position is it applies to all garments. But does it mean only his garment? Someone else's garment? So some wanna suggest that the source for this

24:52 Speaker 2 halakhah is in Tashbets Katan, and he brings it together with the halakhah of putting clothing under your pillow. And some people wanna suggest that that halakhah also only applies to your clothing and not to, um, someone else's clothing, and therefore maybe here too that would be the case. But the reason why these two halakhahs are together, they both talk about clothing. They both talk about forgetting your learning. So therefore they're put together. Who says they follow the same rules? And whether the rule of clothing under your pillow is no good for you, forgetting your learning, i-is harmful if it's your clothing or someone else's clothing is also not so clear. Although someone suggests that, they bring a raya from the Bigdei Kohanim that the Kohanim put it under their heads, they put their Bigdei Kohanim. But there's so many answers how the Kohanim were allowed to put their Bigdei Kohanim under their head, including the fact because they were doing a mitzvah, because there's a kedusha attached with-- Not necessarily because it's not their clothing, it's like someone else's clothing. Especially the Ben Ish Chai writes that the idea of putting clothing under your head, that it's no good, it makes a person forget, is actually a natural consequence. It's not a segula. There's a logic why the clothing with the sweat that affects your head, so therefore it wouldn't make a difference if it's your clothing or someone else's clothing. So since the p-idea of putting clothing under your head is not necessarily only

26:02 Speaker 2 your clothing, wiping your hands. The reason it says wiping hands on your garment is because that's the common thing that you do. Why are you wiping on someone else's garment? Well, we do have a Gemara about a story that a guy that wiped his-- washed his hands and wiped it on someone else's garment, and therefore they said that that means he doesn't care about stealing. You can't bring any proof from that Gemara because the Gemara's talking about stealing. It doesn't talk about the smaller issues about wiping your hands on clothing. And you can't-- Oh, you see someone else's clothing, it was a problem, but his own clothing wouldn't be a problem. No. Um, th-that's not the, the subject of discussion over there. Some people wanna say, of course, an, the, a Halachic thing that depends that, uh... It's brought in Halacha, Netilat Yadayim le-Seda. It's brought in the Halachas of washing hands for a meal, and that story in the Gemara, who says it was washing hands for a meal? Personally, I don't think this is correct. It's brought in Halacha about Netilat Yadayim le-Seda, but if you look in the original source, the Orach Chayim has a girsah like that in the Gemara. And if, if the girsah's in the Gemara, mana bechaluka, the Gemara doesn't talk about which washing, any washing. So the Poskim are bringing in one of the washings, washing for a meal. The Orach Chayim is not even found in Halachas Netilat Yadayim. So therefore, it's-- there's no clarity proof

27:12 Speaker 2 that it's only your clothing, not someone else's clothing. I personally would say it should be machmir even with someone else's clothing, even if you have permission from the person. We don't have a lot of time left for the-- our last topic. I'm just gonna touch on it briefly, and I will mention that a lot of these questions, when they go up online, you could see them with the links to Ask the Rav. So if you wanna look into more detail, look, look at the links on the asktherav.com website. I'll just mention the question briefly. This is a question about mezonos wraps. Some wrap-- bread wraps, it says on it that they are mezonos. But we know there's a big issue about not eating mezonos bread. There's some stringency about mezonos bread. Does the same thing apply to wraps? Well, the first question is: How is this wrap made? If the wrap is made with flour and water, then it's the same as bread. It's hamotzi. If it's made with fruit juices or other liquids, then it follows the same rule as mezonos bread. What does that mean? That, um, a bal nefesh, a God-fearing person, is particular even with bread which is made with other liquids, not with water, with a majority of other liquids, not to eat them outside a meal. So the same thing would apply to the mezonos wraps. In fact, when we talk about mezonos bread, some people argue it's more than just a bal nefesh. Mezonos breads are worse than

28:24 Speaker 2 the typical case of bread made with other liquids because they taste mamash like bread, and they're made for a meal, and therefore it's sash ve-hamotzi. All those arguments apply to mezonos, to wraps as well. But when it-- The-- Really, this whole discussion is really a moot issue. It's hardly relevant on a practical level. Wraps normally, even more than the mezonos bread, are usually not eaten plain. You eat them with a filling of tuna, egg salad, and it satiates the person. So you're going into a different shail altogether. Whether the bread is mezonos or not is irrelevant because when you're eating a meal, a fixed meal, and it satiates you, you run into a problem of krias kedoshim, which it becomes hamotzi automatically regardless of what the original bread was. We don't-- There's an argument that some people want to say that since it's very thin, therefore it's for sure mezonos. That is not correct. That's not relevant, this concept, in this, in this context, in this regard. Some people have told me that it's made from a blilah raka, from a thin mixture. That is not the, the reality. There might be some isolated companies or individuals who make wraps like that. Commercially available wraps are originally made as a blilah ava, as a thick mixture. Some people wanna say it doesn't have a teresat de-nechama, a shape, a form of bread. That's also not correct. We explained at length on the website exactly what the definition of teresat de-nechama. It's a very difficult topic

29:42 Speaker 2 to understand. The Rishonim already write that we're not bakim, we're not experts in understanding what teresat de-nechama is. But the fact that a thing does not look like a slice of bread the way you buy it in the store doesn't mean it doesn't have teresat de-nechama. Matzah is also a form of bread. Matzah does not look the same as bread. Wraps also do not look the same as bread. So there could be a hamotzi wrap, there could be a mezonos wrap, and like I said, in most cases, it's, it's becoming a meal, so if you-- regardless, you should wash. Besuder service, and thanks for joining us.

30:11 Speaker 3 Join the global Halacha learning revolution of the Lemaan Yilmedu Institute and bring increased brachos into your home. For details about the various learning programs, visit our website, lemaanyilmedu.com. That's L-E-M-A-A-N-Y-I-L-M-E-D-U.com.